Posted on 05/09/2009 12:47:21 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Yesterday I happened upon a post by a fellow FReeper. In retrospect, I am sorry for responding rudely to their post - and I hope they happen upon this apology.
The post was presenting their heartfelt opinion that American industry and our system itself must be allowed to come apart so that something better can replace it.
It was a Rand-ian position. The system is becoming oppressive, therefore we must weaken it.
In any case, the link for the following is in my comment #93 (man, that seems a long time ago):
One of the greatest contributions the United States can make to the world is to promote freedom as the key to economic growth. A creative, competitive America is the answer to a changing world, not trade wars that would close doors, create greater barriers, and destroy millions of jobs. We should always remember: Protectionism is destructionism. America's jobs, America's growth, America's future depend on trade—trade that is free, open, and fair. [emphasis added]This year, we have it within our power to take a major step toward a growing global economy and an expanding cycle of prosperity that reaches to all the free nations of this Earth. I'm speaking of the historic free trade agreement negotiated between our country and Canada. And I can also tell you that we're determined to expand this concept, south as well as north. Next month I will be traveling to Mexico, where trade matters will be of foremost concern. And over the next several months, our Congress and the Canadian Parliament can make the start of such a North American accord a reality. Our goal must be a day when the free flow of trade, from the tip of Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle, unites the people of the Western Hemisphere in a bond of mutually beneficial exchange, when all borders become what the U.S.-Canadian border so long has been: a meeting place rather than a dividing line.
All trade is managed. Even the neighborhood kid who you pay under the table to paint your garage (about as “free” of an exchange as there can be) can still sue you if he falls and breaks his elbow.
Please ping me if he ever actually answers you. I'm afraid you're in for a lot of dancing.
ping
pong?
Well, I was told by PSS that "managed trade" was socialism.
You would disagree with that, then?
See post 633. He answered.
Thanks.
Protectionism, from my reading, has usually been used to describe a situation where equalizing prices is the motivation behind tariffs. Reagan himself argued that such use of tariffs would make people complacent and ultimately that protection would lead to a certain laziness instead of continuously pursuing new methods or technolgies to gain a competitive edge (these are my words, but I hope you recognize the thoughts that he portrayed -- my memory is fuzzy as it's been quite a few years since reading this). I share that philosophy. But, in other instances, we saw Reagan rail about "unfair trade practices" and institute tariffs and other measures to compensate (steel, electronics, lumber, etc). From what I've seen from some free-traders on FR, people would be calling him a protectionist, an isolationist, a liberal, or a socialist -- or all of the above.
America's jobs, America's growth, America's future depend on trade—trade that is free, open, and fair.
My contention is that much of today's trade is subsidized through various tax policies. I mentioned a few -- port and transportation funding coming from taxpayers as opposed to being paid for by those receiving the direct benefit. It is for this reason that I don't think Ronald Reagan would be supportive of today's trade situation and would be railing about "unfair trade practices" in many areas.
Cold Cash Jefferson agreed to vote for the Bankruptcy Reform Act which netted the banks a few extra billion. In return, the Repub's agreed to ignore his criminal acts. This is what Nancy Pelosi referred to as the culture of corruption.
Note no Republican ever took her to task ... they are now set for life with various consulting jobs and lobbying positions. Bastards
Now I know someone spiked my coffee - I'm agreeing with 1rudeboy?
Oy!
I'm sorry, but I really feel like I'm explaining the obvious . . . it requires popcorn to "digest" properly?
Really, Mojave, as far as personal attacks go it's pathetic.
Do you agree or disagree?
Nope. You're spouting nonsense in smearing Ronald Reagan's trade policies as "socialistic."
But you can't help yourself.
Finish the sentence.
You can’t help putting words in other people’s mouths. It does explain why you have an irrational fear of answering questions, though.
Listen to Mojave, you plebe! Finish!
You claimed that Ronald Reagan was a "protectionist" and then that any management of trade is "socialistic."
Don't play coy.
Let me remind you, again (and for the last time): I’m the one arguing on this thread that Reagan was a free-trader. You won’t even acknowledge it because you are deliberately being obtuse. You think you can score points that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.